Similar products

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds a genuinely new trait: Torob ignores page size, so truncation happens locally at `limit`. That is useful, but other behavior (whether an unknown/redirected product id errors or returns empty, ordering of the similar list) is left unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, when to use it, a non-obvious truncation caveat, and the next-step tool. Front-loaded and waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and full schema coverage on inputs, the description supplies the missing return-shape hint (cheapest price, shop count) and the limit caveat, which is enough to call the tool correctly. Remaining gaps (result ordering, empty-result behavior) are minor for a simple read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining that `limit` is applied locally because the upstream source ignores page size — context the schema does not convey. It says nothing about the `product` parameter, but the schema documents accepted id/path/URL forms thoroughly. Note the schema's own default value (10) conflicts with its property text ('default 15'), which the description does not resolve.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the specific resource ('Products Torob shows as similar') and what each row carries (cheapest price, shop count), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest retrieval siblings like tb_product or tb_variants, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case ('Use for "what else is like this"') and routes follow-up work to tb_compare. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs tb_variants or tb_products_batch), but the intended context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.